The guests discussed that the debt crisis, Brexit, the refugee crisis, referendum results regarding the EU surprising politicians all over Europe, and two-speed Europe are just part of the issues that the European Union is facing at the moment. Many people are concerned about the future of the EU. The bleak picture is that member states might not find a way to work together and the EU will dissolve. On the positive side, coming out of the crisis might make the EU stronger and more united than ever, said the three speakers.

“I think the EU is a living organism and it is subject to multiple processes,” said Siderov. “One on the level of the institutions, another one on the interaction between institutions and nation states, and then you have the nation states themselves which have their own political agendas and multiple agendas within themselves. So we talk about multiple levels and a tremendous set of processes which are currently made difficult by the number of challenges which the EU is facing,” he added.

There is a need for reform and change of direction. The question at hand examines the EU’s ability to build new capacities and prove its relevance to the citizens of its member states. Some of the ongoing issues that might getaddressed are related to the transparency of the decision-making within the union as well as an explanation why EU policies are important to the citizens of the EU countries.

“The union should reform and aim to be more transparent, to be more democratic, to shorten the distance between people and the leads, to make decisions and policies relevant to people’s needs, but it should also be able to say it and present it in a clear and more understandable manner. Which it has not always done,” noted Siderov.

The complexity of the institutions, the bureaucracy, and the never-ending problems with cooperation are some of the main concerns that opponents of the EU have brought forward in the recent years. Citizens and political leaders have also expressed their negative views about the EU and its relevance, especially during the course of the migration crisis. Because of the complexity of the institutions, the outdated rules often cannot be revisited and updated to fit the current situation, supposedly resulting in injustice for some member states. Moreover, the relationship between the EU and the member states citizens has been problematic, often leaving citizens confused about the purpose of the EU.

“It would be fair to say that it is not only the people who are confused, just the citizens,” said Siderov. “It’s the bureaucrats and the political leadership as well. And that’s normal when you have such a complex political body. Changing direction under stress is bound to be a difficult process. What I think is important is that the spirit of the union is preserved and the reasons why the union is there in the first place are remembered. There is more value in having the union than not having it,” he explained.

Politicians and lawyers Dimitar Delchev. Images: Wikipedia

Coming from his background in politics and judicature, Delchev explained that the current legal framework is one of the main issues when dealing with migrants. This framework is based on the Schengen Agreement and the Dublin Regulation. The Schengen Agreement declared that member states have the obligation to protect their external borders and those of the EU. But as Delchev clarified, this does not mean that the whole burden to block migrants falls on border countries. The second piece of legislation, the Dublin Regulation, states that a refugee can apply for asylum in one member state and that member state is solely responsible for a decision on their case.

“This is an injustice for the five to six countries that pretty much have to deal with the issue alone,” commented Siderov.“We did not have these levels of migration before. “In other words, the legal basis for solving migration problems that are the Geneva Convention is outdated. This is a political problem. We have to update the legal basis,” he then continued.

One of the core principles of the EU is solidarity. But in recent years with the incoming waves of refugees to the EU, there is also an increasing detachment within the union. According to Kuneva, the lack of understanding between the EU member states hinders the establishment of a common migration and European defensepolicy, anddecreases the barriers in the single market.

Meglena Kuneva talks in AUBG. Credits: aubg.edu

“We need to understand better each other,” said Kuneva. “Or we will be more distant. Not hostile but suspicious. We are not going to be fast to embrace people from other countries…I dream that we will have a different world and different Europe. We need to face the reality first and find a solution,” she explained.

The European Commission released a proposal (document containing propositions for European Union action in a specific area) with the title “White Paper on the Future of Europe.” Marking the Union’s 60th anniversary, this document proposes five scenarios according to which Europe might work ahead in the future.

“This White Paper maps out the drivers of change in the next decade and presents a range of scenarios for how Europe could evolve by 2025. In doing so, it starts a debate that should help focus minds and find new answers to an old question: What future do we want for ourselves, for our children and for our Union,” as stated in the European Commision white paper.

In this scenario, the EU would continue to focus on policies that can bring tangible results such as jobs, growth, and investment. The white paper states that “cooperation in the management of external borders stepped gradually; progress towards a common asylum system; improved coordination on security matters.”

However, according to Siderov, this is an unsuccessful immigration policy given that four or five countries take the burden of hosting the initial wave, and then one or two countries host most of the refugees.

Nothing but the single market

In this scenario, EU member states would concentrate on the single market and would not cooperate for the purpose of solving other issues such as migration. “No single migration or asylum policy; further coordination on security dealt with bilaterally; internal border controls are more systematic,” stated the white paper. This means that all members have to deal with the issue on their own. By Siderov’s account, such a scenario is not an option due to its unattainable nature.

Those who want more do more

In this case, “the European Union allows willing member states to do more together in specific areas,” as disclosed in the Commissions proposed paper.

Elaborating on the abovementioned statements, countries which are affected or have an interest in dealing with the immigration issue can work on solving it, without considering other member states’ position on the matter. Essentially, stakeholder states develop their own strategy and may form a coalition with other like-minded states, without affecting the whole EU. According to Siderov, this is the current situation within the EU with countries forming coalitions within the union.

Doing less more efficiently

The Commission’s proposal states that “in a scenario where there is a consensus on the need to better tackle certain priorities together, the EU27 decides to focus its attention and limited resources on a reduced number of areas.” For common migration and defense policies, the white paper states that countries will work on “cooperation on border management, asylum policies and counter-terrorism matters are systematic.”

However, Siderov shared that there might be a downside of “doing less more efficiently.” If left undefined, this scenario might create discrepancies between the member states and leave important issues unaddressed.

“If you are doing less in terms of border security obviously that’s not a good thing,” said Siderov. “You have to take care of the borders. If you do less in terms of humanitarian issues that’s also not good either. You have to define very carefully and you have to make sure that everybody who does less more efficiently does the same thing more efficiently,” he added.

Kuneva shared her personal opinion in saying that “doing less more efficiently” is her favorable scenario.

“I like this idea of doing less more efficiently,” said Kuneva. “I hope we are going to do it together.”

Doing much more together

In this case, the EU member states will work together on a series of issues. “Member States decide to share more power, resources, and decision-making across the board. As a result, cooperation between all Member States goes further than ever before in all domains,” the white paper states. This means that countries will have a united position on immigration and cooperate in order to solve any arising problems. Siderov shared that this is his favorite scenario despite its utopian nature.

The direction that the EU would follow and its outcome are still uncertain. Britain’s decision to leave the EU demonstrated that despite the benefits of the union, there is still a possibility for member states to decide to leave. This means that the probability of a dissolving union should also be considered, especially in the light of the pressing issues that the EU is facing at the moment.

“The union is a social and political construct like any other construct,” said Siderov. “It came into existence and it might very well end its existence and that can happen. But the point is how to keep it in existence. When you look at it impartially the benefits of having one are more than the negatives. Yes, we should think about all possible scenarios, even the one when the EU is not there. Obviously, each individual country will have to survive and keep going. But I think it is certainly worth trying to think of ways how to improve it rather than destroying it,” he explained.